Transport Minister Steven Joyce has made the introduction of drug tests for drivers his “top priority”.

A bill, which would give police the power to stop and make drivers have a roadside test for drug impairment, is before Parliament’s select committee.

Drafted by the previous Labour Government, the bill failed to get through the select committee stage in 2007.

Mr Joyce has now put the bill forward again and believes it will be passed by the middle of the year.

It certainly is a serious problem:

An ESR study between 2004 and 2008 found 52 per cent of drivers that died in accidents were under the influence or alcohol or drugs.

What I don’t know if how any testing will determine if the drug use was recent (ie is currently impairing the driver) or historical. Off memory cannabis can remain in your bloodstream for weeks or longer.

Share this:

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 14th, 2009 at 9:50 am and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

While I agree that driving while high is terrible, and should be cracked down upon. This strikes me as a policy with many possible flaws, and might be a fishing expedition pushed by the police.

The major issue here is going to be presence vs impairment. It is not illegal to have previously consumed drugs in NZ (as it is in say saudi arabia etc). Only to be in possession etc, (as one could have consumed in another jurisdiction).

Pot stays in the bloodstream for ages, and its effect on driving is mixed. Some its terrible, and potentially deadly, for others it improves concentration. But, as mentioned if its a blood test (which is invasive and potentially against bora if done without a warrent) then you are going to be testing for presence, not impairment.

Meth on the otherhand dissapears after a few days.

Its not like Booze, where, what you can measure on the breath gives you a good indication of current impairment. (though I believe there are some saliva tests out there) etc that give a reasonable indication.

As someone who supports drug liberalisation, I understand that freedom must come with responsibility, but while said substances are currently illegal, I see this as a nightmare waiting to happen, and will be used by police to fish for future warrents etc.

Also, I believe pot shows up the same on tests as legal substances such as JWH018. So, I have no problem with people being charged with driving under the influence while impaired etc… but – if they get done for possession after consuming a legal substance (putting aside the fact that pot should be legal anyway) there are going to be serious issues.

I have no faith in the nats, (and especially Ms Lets all Ban Water Dean) ability to decide on sensible drug policy.

The problem with cannabis, mdma, cocaine, meth is that they linger in the system long after people are under the influence of the drugs. so any drug test may pick up residual levels and people can find themselves charged for having taken drugs, not being under the influence. these tests had better be pretty sharp or the judiciary is going to be tied up in the extreme with people challenging the charges.

There are three issues:
1. It is an offence to drive under the influence of legal substances if they impair driving – doctors will tell patients not to drive after certain treatments or taking certain drugs.
2. Parliament can make it illegal to drive when legislated testing procedures show more than a prescribed amount of a specified chemical in the body. If the chemical is one that directly causes impairment then fair enough. So it would not matter if the person had been smoking pot or taking JWH018, assuming that both are equally capable of impairing driving.
3. Results from such prescribed tests, while being determinative for drug-drive puropses must still reach the usual evidential threshholds for criminal drugs charges. In any case AFAIK presence of an illegal substance in the body does not contravene drug laws.

There seems only one significant party that would have drug policies to Mike’s liking.

I think it was NZ comedian Jeremy Elwood who noted “If you smoke and drive, you’re a bloody slow driver.”

Big Bruv, no cannabis reform lobby portrays cannabis as a harmless drug. What demonstrable harms exist pale in comparison with the harms caused by prohibition. It’s the same argument that the US faced with repealing alcohol prohibition. Alcohol isn’t harmless, but the banning of alcohol consumption caused racketeering, murder, vast (untaxed) black markets and, quite probably, INCREASED problem drinking. Have a look at Mexico if you think drug prohibition is less harmful than the drugs themselves.

Get staffed. Smoking weed, is a right under natural justice, that is a negaitve right, in that one should not be prevented from doing so (as opposed to the positive right, that the state must provide said weed)…

This could potentially be seen as a move towards cannabis legalisation. After all, it is a step closer to treating it identically to how the law treats alcohol – use it if you like, but only if you’re old enough, and not in ways that put others at risk.

If Philu gets stoned on a friday night, then gets stopped by the cops driving to work on monday morning (haha), he’s fucked and will lose his license and get charged with dui. On the other hand, the guy who went and had a few dozen on that same friday won’t have any problems with blowing into the machine on monday. On the monday neither of them will be under the influence of any drugs, but one of them is still going to get nicked.

yes the presence in the body will be a big issue, if i remember rightly there was a pilot scheme testing for stoned drivers up hamilton, i don’t know what you people did during your youth, but to my generation goin out cruising, pot was for the driver while the rest of us were on the piss, not to mention the classic kiwi road trip, all fond memories. From my experience i would far rather be in car with a stoned driver than a drunk one, (and yes i’ve been in both) a 70kph white knuckle drive down the motorway with cars passing us and thinking shit they’re goin fast, stoned as, as opposed to the 140kph “death cruise” missing cars by inches and hearing the re-assuring noise of the reflectors on the road going under the wheel. There needs to be a difinitive test to prove that the driver is impaired at that specific moment. If not it will be a dismal faliure and result in hundreds of people locked up for victimless crime.

Having considered the issue of cannabis legality over the years (although never when I was high as a kite) I don’t think I’d object to it’s legalisation as long as it was taxed to the same level as tobacco is now (and cyclists should be 😉 ).

This has no bearing, of course, on it’s detection when assessing drivers’ abilities.

I’m all for that.

What I seriously hope though is that this detection is used on drivers stopped for bad driving and not applied to people stopped illegitimately at “check-points” who’s sole “crime” was to use the roads to travel from point to point.

I would hope also that this drug detection is applied equally to ALL road users who drive/ride/walk badly with identical penalties for all convicted.

Why not simply got back to the old physical tests eg walk a straight line, touch your nose, say the alphabet?

If you cannot pass these basic sorts of tests I don’t care if its because your drunk, stoned, high on prescription drugs or just fatigued the results prove you are not safe to be in control of a motor vehicle.

You can try an complicate things and introduce special tests/devices etc but whats wrong with the K.I.S.S (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle.

Wikiriwhis, if it meant that the risk of impaired drivers on our roads was totally eliminated, then personally I’m happy for the government to require a blood sample every time I go to start up my car. If however its only going to make a marginal improvement then I say forget the reason why they’re impaired and lets focus on roadside testing simply measuring if people are able to safely control a vehicle.

I don’t think ANYONE is defending “stoned driving” anymore than they would defend drunk driving.

But the average kiwi is too ignorant to understand that presence of a drug in the blood stream does not mean impairment, so we keep on going around in circles. Pot stays in the blood for up to 30 days, you do not remain stoned for 30 days.

Are you suggesting that people should not be able to drive for 30 days after touching it.

“An ESR study between 2004 and 2008 found 52 per cent of drivers that died in accidents were under the influence or alcohol or drugs.”

If Stephen Joyce is bent on repeating this kind of worthless propaganda he’s the wrong man to be in charge of Transport. We need someone who has the intelligence to see through such feeble misinformation, not one who gormlessly repeats it.

We want truth not self serving garbage primarily designed to provide the worthless authoritarian and fascist desk pilots in the Dept of Transport with job security.

Very bad judgment.

Nick Smith is challenging his bureaucrats. Joyce needs to do the same. Dept of Transport is out of control. Especially with this kind of propaganda.